This House Would Ban All Forms of Animal Testing

The 3rd Ordinary Meeting of the 165th Session of the Literific took place on the 17th of October in the Senate Room and was attended by 49 members. It was in conjunction with IDEA who were basically paying us to have a debate we would have probably done for free anyway. It was recorded by Queen’s Radio, which I’ve listened to and would like to apologise for you having to listen to my voice right now. Like sorry. For shiz.

Congratulations were sent to the now Dr Stephen Goss in Private Member’s Business, which lost some its value when President Kydd referred to him as Mr Goss. Well done.

A vote was taken before the debate because IDEA are weird, there were 2 abstentions, 8 people for and 34 against…which no, does not add up to 49. Darn you extra abstentions.

The motion was This House Would Ban All Forms of Animal Testing.

Mr James McAlister opened for the proposition. He explained that equality shouldn’t be reserved for humans. He questioned why it is acceptable to test on animals that are aware and intelligent and can feel pain, that taking these factors into account it would be more appropriate to test on an orphan with brain damage.

Mr Robert Bentall spoke first for the opposition. He claimed that testing on animals is a necessity and that the animals involved are not in pain. He compared the testing of animals to the castration and domestication of them. He concluded that it may sound bad, but that he valued human life more than animal life.

Mr Jonathan Irwan continued for the proposition. He explained that we should be protecting animals, that we have the choice to not make them suffer. He told the House that the majority of animal testing doesn’t lead to medical advances and that it is cruel to inject them with diseases.

Mr Brendan Kelters questioned the logic of the proposition. He mentioned the good that has come from animal research and that to completely ban it would mean giving up all these advances. He supported the banning of animal testing for frivolous things but that ethically it is needed for medical research.

Mr Joshua Wilburn, speaking for the proposition, told the House that animals have the right not to suffer, that there is no reason to believe their experience of pain is less. He explained how much an animal would suffer as they would not be able to rationalise their situation and would only see never ending pain. He compared animals to orphaned newborns and asked whether we should raid orphanages.

Mr Nick Millington ended the debate. He admitted that animal testing is not the best model but that there is currently no alternative as science has not yet advanced enough. The current ‘alternatives’ would be inaccurate and tedious, not giving any kind of useful results. He told the House that if we were to ban animal research there would be many horrible deaths and that we would be defenceless.

The debate then went to the floor. The opposition had it pretty easy. Questions were heard from Ms Fleming, Mr Cantley, Ms Gibson, Ms Andrade Rocha, Ms Stratful, Mr McNally, Mr Thompson and Ms Philpot. Most awkward question was ‘why not eat the brain damaged orphans’. Love it.

Another vote was taken, there were 3 abstentions, 8 ayes and the motion was defeated with 36 nayes, which again doesn’t add up to 49 but okay.